Una Cum Masses Exposed and the Te Igitur Prayer Controversy Explained

Una Cum masses refers to masses
in which the priest would mention the name of a person he considers
to be his leader, such as John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently,
Francis, in the first prayer of the Canon.

These Masses are sometimes referred to
as “una cum Masses,” because the Latin phrase into
which the name of a reigning pope is inserted reads: una cum
famulo tuo Papa nostro N. (together with Thy servant N., our
Pope)

The Te Igitur prayer of
the Mass is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this
prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and
bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered: “...which
in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church,
that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and
govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope,
N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic
and Apostolic Faith.” In Latin the phrase together with
is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the
priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is
vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the
mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for
the priest’s position about John Paul II, Benedict XVI or,
currently, Francis and the New Vatican II Church. If he thinks that
John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis is the true Pope, successor of
Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the
other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one,
then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So
this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he
or isn’t he the Pope?

Now,
those of us who have arrived at a correct understanding of the actual
situation in the Church — so-called “sedevacantists”
(see sedevacantism)
— affirm that Bergoglio/Francis is a heretic and an apostate
and therefore no true pope. So, on the face of it, it
makes no sense whatsoever for us to
participate in a Mass where, a few moments before the consecration,
the priest proclaims that Bergoglio is Papa
nostro — “our pope.”

In many parts of the world, however,
the only traditional Latin Mass available may be one offered by a
priest (Motu Proprio, FSSP, Society of St. Pius X or independent) who
puts the false pope’s name in the Canon. Faced with choosing
this or nothing, a sedevacantist layman is sometimes tempted to
assist at the Mass anyway. Why could he not simply overlook the name,
and “just go for the Mass”?

To answer this question, we must turn
to the writings of pre-Vatican II liturgists, canonists and
theologians, as well as to various papal pronouncements and decrees.
This is where we priests or laymen are supposed to look for
answers, rather than just relying on gut or personal opinion.

To answer the question: No, you can’t
just “overlook” a false pope’s name in the Canon of
a traditional Mass if you are a sedevacantist. His name there affirms
that he is a true pope, and by actively assisting at such a Mass, you
participate in that false affirmation. Since you know he’s
not the pope, this is sinful. For the same reason, neither can you
assist at Mass or receive the sacraments from any other heretical
priest or society. Since you know the priest is not Catholic,
and that the “Church” or society is a non-Catholic sect,
this is clearly sinful and against the teaching of the Church.

1917 Code of Canon
Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of
heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly
consecrated or blessed.”

III Council of
Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman
shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the
heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed
and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop
or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be
suspended from communion.”

Council of
Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with
heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are
cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy
or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium animos (# 10), January 6, 1928: “So,
Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never
allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non-Catholics.”

Recently,
the supposedly “traditional” Ratzinger has been replaced
by Bergoglio, and his crazy antics have started to make the
previously unthinkable thought of sedevacantism quite
thinkable for a lot of people. I thought it would be a good idea to
provide the evidence in a short article here, in order to help these
Catholics reason out the practical conclusions that flow from an
understanding that the post-Vatican II popes are no true popes at
all.

Warning: As a side note of
caution to the reader, just because a man or group holds the
sedevacantist position does not mean they are Catholic. If they hold
or practice any heresy then they are not Catholic. Many of those who
hold the sedevacantist position are not Catholic and are the
pre-Vatican II heretics that led to the Great Apostasy. Many are also
ambitious rebellious heretics, who have taken advantage of the vacant
sees.

Most
people who hold that no one may attend any “una cum”
Masses believe that you may attend the Masses of other heretical
sedevacantist priests. But I would ask them: “Why
do you believe that you may go to a priest who is himself a heretic,
as long as he doesn’t pray for a heretic (Benedict XVI, or
Francis)?” In order to help people answer
this question truthfully, the following catechism question will be
provided: “How does a Catholic sin against faith? A
Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.”
(Catechism
of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X
and The Baltimore Catechism)

If you have believed in heresy or
schism, have you publicly abjured in writing? If you have been in
communion with public heretics or schismatics, have you abjured your
association with them? If you have been in communion with those who
are in communion with public heretics or schismatics (the Society of
St. Pius X, and the independent chapels who pray one with (una cum)
Antipope John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis) or any
other heretics, have you removed yourself from them and abjured? If
not, then why have you not? Did you know that the denial of one dogma
would place you outside the Catholic Church and in damnation?

Pope Leo XIII,
SatisCognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “…
can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without
by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating
himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping
act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith
that nothing can be more absurd than to accept
some things and reject others… But
he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth
absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses
to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motiveof
faith.”

Did you know that the committing of one
mortal sin of immorality, if un-confessed, would send your soul to
hell if you did not have perfect contrition with a desire for
confession? If you have committed these mortal sins, against either
the Catholic faith or morals the Church demands that you take
specific actions to get back into a state of grace. Have you
sincerely attempted to take the appropriate steps that the Holy
Catholic Church requires to get back into a state of grace?

St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 6, Reply to
Objection 3: “… the sacramental power of Penance
consists in a sanctification pronounced by the minister, so that
if a man confess to a layman, although he fulfills his own part of
the sacramental confession, he does not receive sacramental
absolution. Wherefore his confession avails him somewhat,
as to the lessening of his punishment, owing to the merit derived
from his confession and to his repentance, but he does not
receive that diminution of his punishment which results from the
power of the keys; and consequently he must confess again to a priest
[whenever he can do so].”

St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 5: “If,
however, he were bound to confess again, his first confession
would not be useless, because the more priests one confesses to,
the more is the punishment remitted, both by reason of the
shame in confessing, which is reckoned as a satisfactory punishment,
and by reason of the power of the keys: so that one might confess so
often as to be delivered from all punishment.”

Consequences of Attending “Una Cum”
Masses

What Does the “Una Cum” Prayer Mean?

There are two ways of looking at this phrase: its linguistic meaning (What do the grammar, terms and context mean?) and its theological
meaning (What doctrines does it express?).

(a) Linguistically. From this
perspective, putting Bergoglio’s name into the una cum in
the Canon affirms that he is a true pope (“our pope”).
Obviously, sedevacantists reject that.

Recognition of the Head of the
Church. In a Bull addressed to Eastern Rite Catholics, this
was one of the meanings that Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) assigned
to the mention of the pope’s name in the Sacred Liturgy:

Benedict XIV, Ex
Quo (# 12), March 1, 1756: “It suffices Us to be able to
state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers
offered for [the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is
considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which
recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of
Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter…”

Profession of Communion with the
Pope. This was yet another meaning that Pope Benedict XIV
attached to the practice of mentioning the name of the pope in the
Mass.

Benedict XIV, Ex
Quo (# 12), March 1, 1756: “[This commemoration of the
pope is, moreover] the profession of a mind and will which
firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly
noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: ‘This
commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion’….”

It also affirms that Bergoglio is a
member of the true Church, because his name is mentioned in
the prayer for the Church.

Profession of Communion with the
True Church.This is the conclusion one draws from the
teaching of Pope Pelagius I (556–61) in a letter of rebuke to
schismatics:

“How can
you believe that you are not separated from communion with the
universal church if you do not mention my name within the
sacred mysteries, as the custom is?” (Epistola
5, PL 69:398)

And further, according to the
commentary on the Mass by Canon Croegaert:

“To pray
for the Pope is to give witness that you live in communion
with the Head of the true Church.” (Les Rites et les
Priéres du Saint Sacrifice de la Messe, 2:106)

The very basis of sedevacantists’
position is the teaching of canonists and theologians that loss of
membership in the Church effects the automatic loss of the
pontificate in a heretical pope. Heresy in a pope puts him outside
the Church and thus out of office.

(b)
Theologically (Doctrinally).
When we plug Bergoglio’s name into the prayer and apply these
meanings to that phrase, here is what results:

The heretic/false pope
Bergoglio is “the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and
the successor of blessed Peter.”

The
acknowledgment of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon is
“the chief and most glorious form of communion” with
him, “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses
Catholic unity.”

The
inclusion of the name of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the
Canon specifies him as “the principle of unity.”

Mentioning
the name of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon is a sign
that you “are not separated from communion with the universal
church.”

The mention
of the name of the heretic/false Pope Bergoglio in the Canon “is
a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”

The
heretic/false pope Bergoglio is the “ruling Pontiff, the
visible pastor and the authorized intermediary with almighty God for
the various members of his flock.”

Since we sedevacantists are logical
about the situation in the Church — that Bergoglio is a heretic
and no pope — these propositions are ridiculous.

Yet they are what results when a priest
professes in the Canon that he offers the traditional Mass una cum
— together with Thy servant Francis, our Pope.

Participation in a Sin.
More than that, Maurice de la Taille S.J. (1872-1933), French priest
and theologian, maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any
liturgical prayer is also a sin:

“Moreover,
since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any
other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living
person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with
her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any
liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or
an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages
of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi
alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can.
2262, parag. 1).” (De la Taille 2:318.)

“The
pope [Gelasius] made every effort to urge the Latin-speaking bishops
of Illyria to erase the hated name of Acacius from their diptychs.”
(Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven
Ecumenical Councils, p. 211.) As we
can see, it was very important for bishops, etc. to remove the names
of heretics and schismatics from their diptychs (the ancient
equivalent of the Te Igitur prayer).

Recognition of a Usurper.
In prohibiting common worship with heretics and schismatics, one of
the Church’s motives was to deny recognition to those who had
usurped or intruded themselves into Church offices. Thus in 1791,
after the revolutionary government of France established a schismatic
Constitutional Church and appointed to diocesan sees and parishes
bishops and priests of its choosing, Pope Pius VI forbade Catholics
to assist at services conducted by these intruders:

Pius VI, Charitas
(# 29), April 13, 1791: “Keep as far from you as possible all
intrusion and schism.… Above all, avoid and condemn the
sacrilegious intruders..… Keep away from all intruders…
do not hold communion with them, especially in divine worship.”

In 1753, when the Holy Office issued a
prohibition against common worship with Greek heretics and
schismatics, the first reason given was “especially because
they commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople.” (Holy
Office, Decree Mission. Tenos In Peloponneseo (10 May 1753),
Fontes 4:804.)

In addition to the other dangers to the
faith posed by worshipping with heretics and schismatics,
Archbishop Francis Kenrick (Archbishop
of Baltimore, 1851–1863) likewise pointed to the recognition of
a usurper as another reason for avoiding such services:

“It is not
allowed to communicate in divinis with heretics or
schismatics:…all admit it is wrong whenever it carries with
it… the recognition of a usurped office.” (F.
Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, 2:366)

By the fact that he assists at an una
cum Mass, the sedevacantist recognizes as pope someone he would
otherwise say is a usurper.

Sin of Scandal. The
Church legislation that forbade Catholics to participate actively in
worship with heretics and schismatics invariably mentioned scandal as
one of the reasons for the prohibition. Heretics and schismatics
would conclude that a Catholic who worshipped with them approved of
their errors or rebellion. Thus the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith warned in 1729:

“When they
see Catholics go to their [heretical and schismatical] churches,
assist at their rites, and participate in their sacraments, should
not one believe (or at least fear) that from this fact alone they
would be more greatly confirmed in their errors, and also be
persuaded by this example that they are walking the straight path to
salvation?

“From this
it follows that it is most difficult to avoid the danger of
pernicious scandal to heretics and schismatics themselves. Wherefore,
a Catholic cannot be safe in his conscience if he worships together
with them this way.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro
Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)

In the case at hand, when a
sedevacantist who is known as such attends an una cum Mass (or
any other traditional Mass presided over by a heretical priest),
those present will assume either that he (1) consents to naming
Francis as a true pope, (2) or that he regards the practice of doing
so as morally indifferent, (3) or that he agrees with the priest’s
schism or heresy. They can then draw the general conclusion that the
identity of the Roman Pontiff (Is Francis a true pope or not?) or (in
the case of SSPX) actual subjection to him is a matter of no
practical consequence to a Catholic. They could then therefore
rightly say of such a person: “Not even a sedevacantist acts as
if it meant anything!” Such, obviously, is an occasion of
“spiritual ruin.”

Can’t I “Withhold My Consent”?

The priest at an una cum Mass,
of course, is the one who utters the objectionable phrase. Couldn’t
the sedevacantist in the pew who objects to it simply “withhold
his consent” from that part of the Canon, but still assist at
the Mass otherwise with heretics in order to fulfill his obligation
or obtain sacramental graces?

Well, no. As explained by Rev. Szal in
his book Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, on Dec.
5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not
to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics
or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE
PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC
MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a
Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a
non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing
Holy Mass. To fulfill your Sunday obligation or obtain sacramental
graces at Mass requires active assistance or participation.
This is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either actively assist or
you don’t.

1917 Code of Canon
Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for
the faithful to assist in any active
manner, or to take part in the sacred services of
non-Catholics.”

A Catholic actively assists at a
traditional Mass by his presence when it is celebrated. This is a
true form of active assistance or participation, and according to
Catholic teaching constitutes “cooperation or common action
with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”

The laity
who assist actively at Mass, in so doing, manifest their consent and
moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the sacrifice. Indeed,
moral unity with the priest is
required to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Furthermore, the Fathers of the
Church, Pope Innocent III,and indeed Pope Pius XII
himself in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically
that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to and
participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites,
even though they do not vocally recite these prayers themselves.

Pope Innocent III
(1198–1216), De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, 3.6: “Not
only do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the
faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his
ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their
intention.”

In Mediator Dei, his great
encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Pius XII treats at great length the
role that the laity play in offering the Holy Sacrifice.

Pope Pius XII,
Mediator Dei (# 93), November 20, 1947: “The people
unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving
with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High
Priest himself, so that in the one and the same offering of the
victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be
presented to God the Father.”

Pope Pius XII,
Mediator Dei (# 84), November 20, 1947: “Moreover, the
rites and prayers of the Eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no
less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests
in company with the people. For not only does the sacred
minister, after the offering of the bread and wine when he turns to
the people, say the significant prayer: ‘Pray brethren, that my
sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;’
but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God
are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is
indicated more than once that the people also participate
in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same.”

Thus there is no way for the
sedevacantist to avoid it. The same active assistance at Mass
required for fulfilling your Sunday obligation also inextricably
joins you to the action of a priest at the altar. So, when the priest
proclaims during the Canon that he offers the sacrifice together
with Thy servant Francis, our Pope — the arch-heretic and
false pope Bergoglio, the priest’s prayer is your
prayer.

What is Wrong with Participating?

If you have become a sedevacantist —
concluded that Bergoglio is not a true pope — but actively
assist at an una cum Mass nevertheless, this means that you:

Tell a pernicious lie.

Profess
communion with heretics.

Recognize
as legitimate the Ecumenical, Vatican II One-World Church.

Implicitly
profess a false religion.

Condone a
violation of Church law.

Participate
in a sin.

Offer Mass
in union with the heretic/false pope Bergoglio.

Recognize
the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.

Offer an
occasion for scandal.

In the case of
Masses offered by “resistance” clergy (SSPX, its
affiliates, and many independent clergy) participate in gravely
illicit Masses and condone the sin of schism.

Such acts are not ones you want to have
on your conscience.

The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The
care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of
Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the
sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their
ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16).
Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin [that is, only if
they didn’t know it was heretics they approached or that it was
wrong to approach them.]”

And of course, those people who have
been made aware of these facts can of course never claim ignorance or
excuse themselves, because “whoever neglects to have or do what
he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission.”

St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: “Now it is
evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have
or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through
negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas
it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is
unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is
called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome
by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being
voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a
sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.
On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about
matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is
not bound to know.”

Truly, one is bound to know the
Catholic Faith well enough to be able to spot heresy when it is
presented. So then – in accordance with the Angelic Doctor –
if we know that our priest, bishop, etc. is heretical or
schismatical, but we adhere to him anyway, then we indeed share in
his sin of heresy or schism, whereby we would then be labouring
OUTSIDE the true religion. Invincible ignorance on the
other hand – ignorance that is not able to be overcome by any
well ordered human effort – is a different matter, and is
totally excusable, unless we are speaking about the essential
mysteries (the Trinity and the Incarnation), and the natural law,
which must be known explicitly by everyone above the age of reason in
order to have salvation. When people break the natural law it is
always a sin, and cannot be excused, since this law is written by God
on every man’s heart. Ignorance of the Trinity and the
Incarnation, however, is not a sin in itself, but God withholds this
knowledge of the essential mysteries from many people since He
foreknew that they would reject His offer of salvation.

Pope St. Pius X,
Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our
Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We
declare that a great number of those who are condemned to
eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of
ignorance of those mysteriesof faith which must be known and believed in
order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Communion with Heretics In the Una Cum Masses and
the Te Igitur Prayer

The
greatest problem with the una cum declaration is that it is a
sin against the profession of the Faith.

As
much as it is necessary for the Catholic priest to mention the name
of the reigning pontiff as a sign of his communion with him and the
Catholic Church as a whole, it is equally necessary for him to avoid
mentioning the name of anyone who is not in communion with the
Catholic Church. When schismatics were reconciled to the Catholic
Church, they had to omit, as part of their sign of adherence, the
names of their schismatic Patriarchs from the canon of the Mass. In
his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris cites the case of a schismatic
bishop who was reconciled to Rome. The papal legates reassure the
pope that, during the course of the Mass, no name was mentioned which
was odious to the Catholic Faith:

“Finally the legates
of [Pope] Hormisda recount to the Pope with these words what happened
to them during the reconciliation of the bishop of the city of Troili
Scampina: We confess, they
said, that it would be hard to find in another people so much
devotion to you Holiness, so much praise to God, so many tears and so
much joy. Nearly all the people received us into the city, both the
men and the women with candles, and the soldiers with crosses. Masses
were celebrated, and no name which is
loathsome to religion was mentioned
but only that of Your Holiness.”

He
also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of
infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the
living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby
implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:

“The priest should be
warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, quæst. 3,] that he
can correctly pray in the Memento
for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this
is a private and not public prayer.” (op. cit., p. 51)

Benedict
XIV (March 1675 – 3 May 1758) himself ordered the Italo-Greeks
to mention the name of the Pope and local bishop, lest there be any
suspicion of schism among them, and furthermore forbade from
mentioning the name of a schismatic Patriarch:

“The second part of
the same warning follows in which, as was noted above, the Greek
priest is enjoined, during the Mass, after he has prayed for the
Roman Pontiff, to pray also for his own
bishop, and for his Patriarch, provided
that they be Catholic; for
if one or the other or both were a schismatic or a heretic,
he would not be permitted to make a
mention of them.” (Ex
Quo, § 18)

Pope
Benedict, in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not
to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic:

“...but
let him carefully avoid
making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.”

“Nor is he [the Greek
priest] generally prohibited, in the often cited Monitum, from making
mention of the Patriarch, but only in the case
where the Metropolitans or Patriarchs should be schismatics or
heretics...” (ibid.,
§ 22)

The
general prohibition against naming heretics and schismatics is
repeated in the 1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV already cited above:

Benedict XIV, Ex Quo (# 9), March
1, 1756: “…‘Therefore where commemorations are
customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be
first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch,
provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are
schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”

He
then cites three cases in which priests were specifically forbidden
by the Holy Office to mention the name of schismatic prelates, in
1673, 1674 and 1732 respectively. The one in 1673 is of special
interest, since the priest’s motive in mentioning the name of
the schismatic was to attract the schismatics to the Catholic Church.
The answer was it is absolutely forbidden.

Pope
Benedict XIV states that the reason for this prohibition is that
heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to
pray publicly for excommunicates: “The
Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates...
And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their
conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the
solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with
the traditional discipline...”
(ibid.,
§ 23) He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: “One
can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are
offered for the members of the Church.”
(In 4 Sent. dist. 18. quæst. 2. art. 1)

HOLY
OFFICE DECREES THAT UPHOLD THE DOGMA THAT COMMUNICATING IN SACRED
THINGS WITH HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS IS FORBIDDEN
AND BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH

First
Rev. Szal begins with questions asked the Holy Office concerning the
attendance at the Masses of schismatics. On Dec.
5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not
to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics
or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE
NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO
CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means
that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by
a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2)
one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. (Collectanea S.
Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones
Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus [hereafter Col.]. Ex
Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907. Vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668))

Another
reply from the Holy Office on April 10, 1704 concerning active
participation in schismatic rites brought the following response from
the Holy See:

“Pope Clement XI
(1700-1721) decreed that it was not licit on the principal feasts of
the year for converts, in order to avoid persecution, to go to the
churches of schismatics, especially during
divine services…” (Ibid.,
Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

On
August 7, 1704, The Holy Office also stated that:

“The decree which
prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of
schismatics APPLIED ALSO IN THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE WERE NO CATHOLIC
PRIESTS AND WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH PRAYERS AS CONTAINED
NOTHING CONTRARY TO FAITH AND THE CATHOLIC RITE.”
(Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

This
means that the Holy See again decreed that when there is no
Catholic priest to offer Mass Catholics are forbidden to approach
schismatic churches in order to hear Mass even if there is nothing
contrary to the Faith, and that when there is
no Catholic priest available, they are not held to the precept of
hearing Mass. (Col., vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668); Col., vol. I, p.
91, n. 267, 1 (1704))

In
a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
decreed:

“… There is
hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some
error in faith… especially where a
commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops —
schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers
of the Catholic faith. For
this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances
like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot
excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least,
from the sin of pernicious scandal.”
(SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission.
Orient.), 1729, Fontes
7:4505)

By
actively assisting at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist
participates in this sin — one made all the worse because it is
committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the
altar.

“Moreover, since today neither in
the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass
does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one
as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also
appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever,
an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person.
This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no
means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be
seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).”
(De la Taille 2:318.)

On
two other occasions, May 10, 1753, and April 17, 1758, the Holy See
again forbade Catholics to participate in the masses of schismatics.

Continuing
his assay of Holy Office pronouncements, Szal lists further decisions
concerning Holy Communion. On June 17, 1839, The Sacred Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith forbade the
reception of Holy Communion from an heretical priest.
A general prohibition against receiving any
sacraments from schismatics was issued by Pope Clement VIII
(1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also forbade the use of the
services given by schismatics for the conferring of the sacraments.
Rev. Szal gives this stunning summary of these decisions as follows:

“From the nature of
the response which the Holy Office gave to questions concerning the
reception of absolution and Extreme Unction from schismatics on the
part of persons who are in danger of death, IT
SEEMS TO BE THE MIND OF THE CHURCH THAT VIATICUM SHOULD NOT BE
RECEIVED FROM SCHISMATICS UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.”
(Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

In
1729 the Holy Office decreed that it is perverse to come together
with schismatic and heretical ministers in unity of prayer, in unity
of cult, in unity of veneration and worship. (Col., vol. I, p. 100,
n. 311 (1729))

In
1669 the Holy See forbade a deacon to sing out the names of heretics
in the liturgy. (SO Decree Mesopotamia, 28 August 1669, Fontes
4:740.)

In
1673 the Holy See forbade a priest to name the Patriarch of the
Armenians (both a heretic and a schismatic) in the prayers of the
Mass. (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius
J. Szal, Pp. 182–183.)

On
June 22, 1859, the Holy Office declared the following:

“Communication with
heretics can be either in a condemned
doctrine, or in rites and other signs
indicative of adherence to a false [non-Catholic] sect,
with the accompanying scandal of the faithful, to
whom the Church therefore forbids this communion,
lest the faith be lost or endangered. Whence St. John the Evangelist
strictly commands: ‘if anyone comes to you and does not bring
this (i.e., the Catholic) doctrine, do not receive him into the
house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is
sharer in his evil works.’ II John 20. These words evidently
imply that everything is forbidden that is
expressed by a welcome, in so far as it constitutes liturgical
actions instituted to signify
ecclesiastical unity.
Wherefore we read that a law was enacted by the Fathers of the
Council of Carthage ‘against praying or singing with heretics’
as is cited by Benedict XIV. It is therefore illicit to invite
heretics to a choir during sacred services, to
sing alternately with them, to give them
peace or sacred ashes and other such tokens of
external worship [with or in front of them],
which are rightly and reasonably regarded
as signs of interior bond and agreement.
This is to be done neither in the active
sense, namely by giving them such things, or
in the passive sense, by accepting from them [such as receiving the
sacraments from them] in their sacred services.”
(SO Instruction Communicatio, 22 June 1859, in Collectanea S. Cong.
de Prop. Fide 1:1176.)

In
1864 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics cannot contribute to the
building of heretical churches and that heretics cannot sing in our
churches nor serve at the altar at Mass. (Col., vol. I, p. 692, n.
1257 (1864))

In
1817 the Holy Office decreed that it is not licit to receive the
nuptial blessing from a non-Catholic minister. (Col., vol. I, p. 420,
n. 717 (1817))

In
1841 the Holy Office decreed that a Catholic bishop is forbidden to
go to a schismatic Greek church to chant the doxology. (Col., vol. I,
p. 519, n. 921 (1841))

In
1789 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics are forbidden to give
stipends for a Mass offered by a schismatic priest since this would
be a form of support of false worship and confirming the schismatic
priest in his error by financial support. (Col., vol. I, p. 371, n.
600, 2 (1789))

In
1753 the Holy Office decreed that Greek Rite Catholics, when they do
not have their own church, cannot go to the Greek rites said by
heretics and schismatics. (Col., vol. I, p. 231, n. 389, ad 2 (1753))

In
1636 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed
that Catholics are not only banned from singing an acclamation for
the schismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople but added that since the
Patriarchs were also heretics they deserved to be cursed instead. The
Sacred Congregation instructed the bishop to repel from his church
the Greeks who sang these acclamations, if indeed he could
effectively do so, for the Patriarchs of Constantinople are deserving
rather of imprecation. (Rev. Szal, Communication of Catholics with
Schismatics, CUA Canon Law Studies 264, Washington, CUA 1948, p.
182.)

The
Holy Office also decreed that Catholic missionaries are forbidden
under pain of suspensio a divinis ipso facto [automatic suspension in
divine things] to invite schismatic government officials, offer them
blessed water when they enter, and to exhibit any kind of honor when
some feast is celebrated. (Col., vol. I, p. 230, n. 388, 5 (1753))

And
the Holy Office decreed that Catholic priests are entirely forbidden
to offer Holy Mass in the private houses of and in places frequented
by schismatics and heretics. (Col., vol. I, p. 230, n. 388, 1 and 2
(1753))

NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

It is also of divine law and not only a
disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other
Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are
heretics, schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a
religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to
profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely
unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics
is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a
“church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic,
will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of
faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and
who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according
to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of
faith, there is only darkness and eternal hell-fire, as Pope Leo XIII
and the following quotes makes clear, for “It is impossible
for us [Catholics] to hold communion after their death with those
[heretics, schismatics and excommunicated] who have not
been in communion with us during their life.” (Pope
Innocent III, chapter xii, de sepulturis, lib. III, tit. xxviii):

Pope Leo XIII,
SatisCognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this
reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for
the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body
of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the
Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which
effects and involves unity of communion, is
necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope Leo XIII,
Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “For this reason
Jerome addresses Damasus thus: “My words are spoken to the
successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross… I
communicate with none save your Blessedness, that is with [Catholics
in communion with] the chair of Peter. For this I know is the
rock on which the Church is built.” (Ep. xv., ad Damasum, n.
2).”

Pope Pius XII,
MysticiCorporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in
the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit,
one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And
therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered
– so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.
It follows that those who are divided in faith or government
cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be
living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope St. Clement
I, 1st Century: “If any man shall be friendly to those
with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity
with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and,
although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind
and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are
outside and are our avowed foes.”

III Council
of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or
layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses
of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and
deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join
in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius IX,
EtsiMulta, #26, Nov. 21, 1873: “Therefore, by
the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate
and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and
all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his
sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate
whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party
has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare,
proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of
the Church.They are to be considered among
those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle
[2 John 10-11] to associate and
have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly
states, they may not even be greeted.”

The above quote is very relevant to our
situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests
would fall under this very same condemnation. First let’s
learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert
and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German
priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s
solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400
Germans who called themselves 'Old Catholics' signed a declaration
that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300
delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to
find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join
them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of
Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of
Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop
in August 1873."

Pope Pius IX,
Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “…
the new hereticswho call themselves 'Old
Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics...
their wicked sect... these sons of
darkness... their wicked faction…
this deplorable sect… This sect
overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly
rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council,
and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have
decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those
unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect
should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with
the Church.”

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit
confirmation that people must consider heretics or
schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a
further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that
Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all
the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new
church” also would fall under the same condemnation as
Joseph Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not
approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for
the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as the heretics
and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of
the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both
traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo
priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by
obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The old “Catholics”
was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even
allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for
example, receive the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated
just like them.

“We
have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that
those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support
that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from
communion with the Church.” (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac
diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you
approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic”
priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately
deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single
heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII,
Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in
all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself
one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set
out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single
heresy he is not a Catholic.”

CONCLUSION

It is evident, therefore, that the
mention of Francis’ name in the Canon (a) is an explicit
declaration of ecclesial communion with a heresiarch; (b) is an
explicit declaration of the identity of the Roman Catholic Church
with the Novus Ordo Church, for where Peter is, there is the
Church; (c) causes intrinsic and insoluble problems —
ecclesiological nightmares — for the traditional priest, since
it places himself and his Mass outside the Church and makes it
schismatic, since he is setting up altar against altar.

Since the una cum phrase is a
statement of communion, the following things are true:

• The una cum Mass is
therefore the equivalent of having Antipopes John Paul II, Benedict
XVI or, currently, Francis in your sanctuary during the Mass, and of
showing him the external signs of being the Pope, such as
incensations, genuflections, etc. Of course you would have to give
him Holy Communion, for if the priest saying the una cum mass is in
communion with the Pope, this means he must commune sacramentally
with him if possible. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

• The una cum Mass is the
equivalent of singing the Oremus pro Pontifice, a hymn sung to
pray for the Pope: Let us pray for our Holy Father John
Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis. May God preserve him, and
give him length of days, and make him blessed upon earth, and not
deliver him into the hands of his enemies.

• The una cum Mass
identifies John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis and the local Novus
Ordo bishop with all the orthodox and the maintainers of the
Catholic and Apostolic Faith. This is absurd. It is a lie. To lie
in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be pleasing to
God.

And if they are the
orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith,
then, by God, let us be with them and not against them. But if they
are not the orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and
Apostolic Faith, then, by God, let us be against them, and not with
them.

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42